Do people have to write a manifesto before their anger has a cause? (Not a justification, a root cause.) I think there’s a difference between saying “these people are probably angry and hopeless and desperate because of these reasons” and “these people are a political movement getting together to protest these reasons”. I haven’t seen a lot of the latter, which is what you seem to be addressing.
Thanks for asking. Greece is a basket case. (Ireland had terrific numbers a couple of years ago though, but screwed the pooch when they bailed out their banks).
You run responsible economic policies during good times, so that you can save for emergencies. But during emergencies don’t put a padlock on the fire extinguisher. That’s silly, right? If there’s a fire, you put it out: you don’t worry about saving your equipment for an emergency.
So how do we tell what Britain’s condition is? We know that if they cut spending, people will be thrown out of work and tax revenues will decline. That indeed is what has happened. But we also know that British investors thirst for safe assets. The proper response them is to give them those safe assets: sell them British gilts and use the proceeds to invest in the nation’s future. Ten year government bonds in the UK are just under 3%: in a country with an inflation rate topping 4% that is very low, dirt cheap even. The market’s signal is unambiguous: they are not worried about the country’s solvency, but they are worried (correctly) about their future growth.
Austerity is for dummies: Latvia is a basket case while Iceland’s recession has been relatively mild. And Britain is suffering the consequences of bad macroeconomic policy.
People who promote fascism are not liberals. They are by definition authoritarian, the exact opposite of liberal.
It’s really, really bad when Der Trihs is more liberal than you are. In fact, I may have to reevaluate my impression of him for this thread alone.
Organised? Not in any overt sense, of course not. It’s also not political in any overt sense.
Out of interst, what have you “heard from the rioters” because the one voice I have not seen anywhere in this debate is disenfranchised youth, rioting or otherwise?
We’re used to that though.
Of their own volition. How many “rioting youths” do you think actually voted in the last General Election? How many have ever written to their MPs? How many are really politically involved? I’m going to guess “not many”.
You don’t estrange yourself from the political process, riot, then get to claim it’s everybody else’s fault for just not listening to me! We expect kids to grow out of that sort of behaviour by the time they’re five.
Draconian measures are required to prevent a reoccurrence of these tactics. These people now know that with the flexibility and mobility enabled bu modern communications they can turn up and loot entire shopping centres with impunity.
I live in a small city of 50,000 or so and on any one weekday evening there are no more than a dozen police of any sort in the place. The rest are a few dozen miles away. There is actually nothing preventing a few dozen rats with blackberries doing whatever they want now that the example has been set.
There’s even the knowledge that if they do get caught sentences for burglary are incredibly light and that those light sentences get cut by a third automatically. The State is quick to throw conspiracy charges against climate activists and the definition of conspiracy is so wide you can ‘conspire’ with people you don’t know and have never communicated with.
So they can damn well charge these people with riotous assembly and add to that conspiracy to do same. Double digit sentences for everyone convicted sends out an unmistakable message and introduces a real element of fear
Draconian responses to policing looters in the act and allowing communities to defend themselves with whatever force is necessary should also be on the cards.
There’s nothing fascist about taking whatever steps are necessary to protect communities against miserable lawless scum.
Er, yes there is. You can argue that fascist tactics are necessary, as indeed you are, but that doesn’t make them not fascist.
Says it all really. Fuck trying to understand something, let’s just view life as a fucking panto, 1 dimensional villains and all.
To protect ourselves from the lawless, we should suspend the rule of law. Superb stuff.
Do you have a cite for this? I’m no expert, but I was under the impression that Iceland had gone bankrupt.
Guess all those better off folks shouldn’t have voted for cutting the police force, right?
And why is that? Who voted for that? Can’t blame it on the rioting kids who, it is claimed, don’t vote so it must be somebody else who wanted that.
So… the state is cutting the benefits these people live on, their educational opportunities, the facilities that gave them something to do… and now you want to house each and every one for a decade or two? The UK is cutting everything and now you want to impose lengthy prison sentences on thousands of people? Do you have any idea how much that costs? More than the dole you’re currently paying them. Are you sure you’re not an American? Because you sound like a “tough on crime” American willing to lock people up for a long time.
What, are you going to allow neighborhood watchtowers equipped with machine guns or something? Allow citizens to simply gun down intruders they think are a threat? Is that a country you want to live in?
If they’re miserable it may be because they are hopeless.
Yes, they are lawless
No, they’re not scum, they’re human beings.
Funny thing, though - the UK spent a couple centuries exporting their troublemakers, their “scum”, first to North America, then to Australia… yet the nation, instead of being rid of them, always winds up generating more. Perhaps you should ask yourselves why there is a persistent underclass in your cities despite the efforts to eliminate them.
Of course, I expect resistance to all that - it’s so much easier to just label them as less than you and view them as disposable. It doesn’t require your society to examine its own flaws and actually try to remedy them.
I am irresistibly reminded of this quote;
[QUOTE=A Man for All Seasons]
William Roper: So, now you give the Devil the benefit of law!
**
Sir Thomas More**: Yes! What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?
William Roper: Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!
Sir Thomas More: Oh? And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned 'round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!
[/QUOTE]
I have no idea of the voting rate of the “youth” of Britain, perhaps you could provide some actual numbers?
Likewise, I haven’t a clue how many write to their “MP’s”. In fact, I’m not even entirely sure was an “MP” is beyond some sort of elected official as I see the acronym frequently but so far as I can recall never actually written out.
How do they actually vote? Does anyone know? If they been voting (the ones who vote) against budget cuts and austerity measures they’ve been losing for years even when participating as they’re supposed to - that’s what I mean, democracy doesn’t always get people what they want. If a particular group (the poor, the young, the whatever) are a minority then in a democracy the majority can keep voting in a manner against their interests and there is nothing they can do about it - this is called “tyranny of the majority” and it’s why, on this side of the pond, we wrote down a list of things that can’t be voted away from anyone no matter how large the majority.
Too many people here are talking about these rioters as if they weren’t fellow citizens of your own country, as if they weren’t even human. You do that in war time, because dehumanizing people makes it easier to kill them. Do you want a war or a civil society? Because you’re talking like you want a war, on your own soil, in your own cities. Is that what you’re “voting” for?
And no, that is not apologizing for criminal activity at all - I am entirely in favor of finding those who broke the law and bringing them to trial. In other words, policing, that boring, not-at-all-exciting work that takes days, then the trials and all that boring lawyer and judge stuff, rather than the immediate raw satisfaction of killing someone in front of you. Do you want the law obeyed, or do you want to dispense with it so you can get your hands bloody? There are people here denouncing the lawlessness of the rioters yet they want to discard the law themselves, so how are they any better?
An MP is a member of Parliament, equivalent to a member of the US Congress.
He was a very perceptive man, Sir Thomas More.
Ah, thank you, I will make note of that.
If only there was some kind of computerised fact-checking system you could have used to find that out, eh? I mean, England’s only had a parliament for the thick end of a millennium - no reason why it should have raised a blip.
Yes, well, apparently “MP” can stand for a lot of things, and “member of parliament” isn’t necessarily first on the list. Rather than guess, I thought I’d ask someone who would have the relevant context for the question.
From what I was hearing on the BBC this morning, the police themselves seem to think that draconian measure are neither necessary nor desirable. What would be your qualifications in law enforcement and/or social sciences, then, to make such a sweeping statement?
It’s easy to advocate “any means necessary” when you’re not one of the ones likely to be shot.
Police don’t really want to escalate violence because - guess what - they’re some of the ones who get the bricks to the head when the riot happens. The last thing they want is to get caught between a rioting mob and a pack of untrained vigilantes wild-eyed at protecting their stuff “at any cost”.